gridlore | Why I hate Ayn Rand, lesson #364

A op-ed piece on the Ayn Rand Institute site declarte that the government should not send aid to tsunami-ravaged areas.

A few specific points here..

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

Try the Constitution of the United States, moron. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the Congress the right to levy taxes and duties. The 16th Amendment specifically authorized the income tax. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 allows the Congress to draw money from the Treasury.

But how did Congress get there? We voted them into office. Thus is a representative government. I vote for a Congressman, 2 Senators, and the Presidential ticket on the national level. We get the government we ask for. Anyone having a problem with this is cordially invited to leave the country, or, work to elect people who agree with you.

Then there is the question of why send the aid? Let's ignore the fact that the government is good at moving masses of supplies on short notice. Ignore the vast fleet of military aircraft available to carry supplies.. let's examine what we get for out money.

1. Improved standing in the region. US aid on the ground helps our image. For those of you who didn't know, the vast majority of the world's muslims don't live in the Middle East, they live in SE Asia, specifically Indonesia (almost 700 million of them.) Indonesia is going to be the battleground in about 20 years, mark my words.

2. Without immediate action, the current death toll is just the beginning. Disease and famine are a very real threat. Ground water has been contaminated, thousands of bodies are unburied. Cholera, diptheria, dysentary.. all are going to crop up and kill people.

3. Lastly, and this will be a shock to the Randites.. it is the RIGHT BLOODY THING TO DO! Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and missing! There is no excuse not to help!

I swear, I want to smack some of these idiots.

And of course, Fred Phelps had to open his hateful mouth on the subject... (links to a PDF)

Thanks to

lysana for the links.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It is. Under the law, the government collects a varity of taxes and fees, and uses them according to the law. That's part of the agreement we live under.

Well, I could start by arguing that I'm not actually living under an agreement. My citizenship was imposed upon me without my consent and continues to be imposed by force. Indeed, being British, even if I acquire someone else's first, I cannot terminate this "agreement" however much I want to.

But if we're going by agreements we live under, that would in this case - theoretically - start with the Constitution, in which I find the following enumeration of Congress's powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I'm not seeing anything there granting the government any power whatsoever to indulge in foreign aid at the taxpayer's expense. Or in the powers assigned to the other two branches, either.

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Foreign aid provides for the defence and welfare in several ways:

1. Aid can stabilize a region.

2. Aid can open new markets for US goods.

3. The Agency for International Development is one of the largest buyers of US wheat. That wheat is used in foreign aid. I think the wheat farmers approve of this. Other industries also benefit directly from aid packages.

I'd be a lot more convinced of (1) if I could think of some examples, really.

As for 2 and 3, as I'm one of the people who opposes both welfare *and* corporate subsidy on the robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul principle, I'm afraid I'm going to be pretty much the same here.

How about the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II? Europe was in shambles, and we pumped in billions of dollars to help France, Germany, and the Low Countries get back on their feet. Imagine what Europe would look like today had we simply left Germany and France the way they were in May, 1945.

Yup.

And the best way to fight epidemic diseases is where they start, rather than waiting until they reach your shores.

Why I hate Ayn Rand, lesson #364

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.

Re: Try and wrap your mind around this.